Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tptacek 3467 days ago
The notion that an identified aptitude for calculation, or written expression, or memorization, or abstract symbol manipulation entitles one to something more than a "mediocre" life is worth challenging, for several reasons.
3 comments

No - They're definitely entitled to a better life. But so is everyone else.

The total untapped human potential is staggering once you take into account the effects of war, racism, sexism, general discrimination, mental illness, physical illness, disincentives, and poverty. At least most of these have improved in the last century.

I hope people realize this is not just about altruism, the economic boost would help everyone.

I think they are saying that someone should be entitled to the same opportunity, despite their home school district and parents. If they don't excel despite those opportunities, nothing entitles them to one life or another. Protecting children from forces beyond their control has long been a goal of many societies and I'd say that's worth keeping.
We as a society would be better off if those people are provided with growth opportunities.
We'd generally be better off if everyone was given growth opportunities; that's just a restatement of the idea of human capital.
We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.
> We would. But given limited resource it might make sense to try to maximize the ROI.

It is not self-evident that giving growth opportunities to "talented" individuals maximizes ROI, as opposed to least privileged, for example.

Perhaps, but even in a utilitarian analysis it's worth challenging the idea that our outcomes would be maximized by further advantaging people with the skills we typically associate with "high IQ".
"In Europe and the U.S., support for research and educational programs for gifted children has ebbed, as the focus has moved more toward inclusion."

Not sure if utilitarian or humanitarian is the better metric, or if there is a real choice. The article does not seem to address the downsides to high prospect/low achievers.

Clearly there is a choice, since there's an obvious deontological argument against choosing a set of sparsely distributed human attributes as a basis for privileging some people above others.